The Enforcement Directorate (ED) disclosed to the Delhi High Court that the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) will be named co-accused in the alleged Delhi Liquor scam. This revelation came during the hearing of former Deputy Chief Minister and AAP leader Manish Sisodia’s bail plea concerning a Money Laundering Case linked to the Liquor policy.
Senior counsel Zoheb Hossain, representing the ED, informed Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma that the AAP will be included as an accused in the case, and a supplementary complaint or chargesheet will be filed accordingly. This decision aligns with the agency’s previous indication before the Supreme Court that it contemplated naming the political party as an accused and invoking Section 70 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to investigate vicarious liability.
During the hearing of former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia’s bail petition concerning the money laundering case linked to the excise policy, the ED counsel disclosed this information. The probe agency has contested Sisodia’s bail plea, alleging that the defendants have been actively attempting to prolong the trial in the liquor policy scam.
Notably, the ED’s move follows the Supreme Court’s dismissal of a challenge to the arrest of AAP’s convenor and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, affirming the applicability of the PMLA to political parties. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma had previously emphasised that the material presented by the ED prima facie implicated Kejriwal in the affairs of the AAP, potentially attracting liability under Section 70(1) of the PMLA.
In addition to implicating the AAP, Hossain informed the court that Accused No. 31, a party spokesperson, will also be included as an accused in the supplementary complaint. He highlighted the concerted efforts made by the accused individuals to delay the trial, citing the filing of over 250 petitions and applications related to the liquor scam.
Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan represented Sisodia in court, advocating for his bail plea in the ED and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) cases linked to the liquor policy scam. Krishnan emphasised the lack of progress in the case and questioned the allegations of deliberate trial delays, asserting that there had been no evidence of collusion among the accused.
The High Court reserved its verdict on the matter after hearing arguments from the ED, the CBI, and Sisodia’s legal counsel.
